is this torture?

[80sU2isBest]

Did you read the article?

Yes, I read it. But I don't know what your point is.

 

[BVS]

Seemed pretty straight forward to me...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Seemed pretty straight forward to me...

Then what is the point?

 

[INDY500]

I, on the other hand, have to prepare for a death in the family. You see, my country, already weakened by the deceit of its leaders, the disillusionment of its people, the despair of its citizens, was dealt a fatal blow today; she was stabbed in the back by three assailants. Chances are she won’t recover.
Suffice to say your attendance at her funeral services will not be welcome, no less required. It would be, you must agree, unseemly for those with blood on their hands to attend.
May God have mercy on the faithful departed, and on those who contributed to her untimely demise.
May God have mercy on those who condone torture, be it overt or in the guise of ‘compromise’.
May God have more mercy than I would – because I would have none.
Yours Without Even the Pretence of Respect,
Nancy Greggs
Citizen of a once Great Nation, the United States of America

Smug, purblind rubbish.

 

[Bono's shades]

Then what is the point?

That Christians shouldn't condone torture?

Maybe you aren't seeing the point because you don't want to see it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

That Christians shouldn't condone torture?

Maybe you aren't seeing the point because you don't want to see it.

Oh, is that what the article said - that Christians shouldn't condone torture?

Hmm..I thought it was a letter from a group of Christians who don't support torture.

The truth is that most Christians and people in general don't condone torture - in normal circumstances.

However, I think you would find that many people, Christian or not, would support waterboarding someone who was planning a murder if that's what it took to thwart the murder plan.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Who evaluates what a person knows? Who holds them to account.

If this didn't work then it wouldn't be an issue, extreme measures up to and including torture will happen regardless of who runs the show - the issues are accountability and transparencyand they deserve debate.

 

[BVS]

- in normal circumstances.

Jesus never laid exceptions to the rule from what I remember...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

September 23, 2006
NY Times Editorial
Turning Back the Clock on Rape

In recent decades, women’s advocates and human rights activists have made huge progress on the issues of rape and sexual assault — in the United States and globally. Both crimes are now more powerfully defined in state and federal laws. In international law, where rape and sexual assault have long been classified as torture and war crimes, the world has begun to accept the importance of enforcement. In 1998, a tribunal convicted a paramilitary chief for watching one of his men rape a woman in Serbia. A year ago, the world rose up in outrage when United Nations peacekeepers raped women in Congo.

You’d think this was a settled issue. But it’s been opened up again in the bill on jailing, interrogating and trying terror suspects that President Bush is trying to ram through Congress in a pre-election rush. Both the White House and Senate versions contain provisions on rape and sexual assault that turn back the clock alarmingly. They are among the many flaws that must be fixed before Congress can responsibly pass this legislation.

Rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse are mentioned twice in the bill — once as crimes that could be prosecuted before military tribunals if committed by an “illegal enemy combatant,” and once as “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes if committed by an American against a detainee. But in each case, the wording creates new and disturbing loopholes.

In the bill, rape is narrowly defined as forced or coerced genital or anal penetration. It utterly leaves out other acts, as well as the notion that sex without consent is also rape, as defined by numerous state laws and federal law. That is the more likely case in a prison, where a helpless inmate would be unlikely to resist the sexual overtures of a guard or interrogator.

The section on sexual abuse requires that the act include physical contact. Thus it might not include ordering a terrified female prisoner to strip and dance, which happened in Rwanda, or compelling a male prisoner to strip and wear women’s underwear on his head, or photographing naked prisoners piled together, both of which happened at Abu Ghraib.

Rhonda Copelon, a professor of law at the City University of New York who was an author of the international law on rape as a war crime, says the bill also could make it impossible to prosecute rape or sexual assault as torture, because the definition of torture in the legislation requires proof of specific intent to commit the crime. Motive is very hard to prove in cases of rape or sexual assault.

Experts on sexual violence fear that the intent is to absolve American soldiers and their commanders from prosecution for deeds that have occurred since Sept. 11. Ms. Copelon also points out that the United States has been trying for years to write a specific intent requirement into international law on torture. The co-authors of the bill, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, did not respond to questions about the section.

But it does not really matter. This language simply needs to be changed, and Senators McCain and Graham should do it. If not, Democrats should insist on this among many other changes they should be demanding before agreeing to a vote on the prison measure.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Jesus never laid exceptions to the rule from what I remember...

Jesus never made a "rule" at all about what governments can do to protect their people.

 

[BVS]

Jesus never made a "rule" at all about what governments can do to protect their people.

So everything he said only applies to the individual, governments are exempt?

 

[najeena]

All arguments for and against the use of torture aside, it's a sad reflection on ourselves that we're even discussing it. Our technology is amazing, yet we resort to stomach-turning brutality when we don't get what we think we need. Stop the earth, I want to get off.

 

[80sU2isBest]

So everything he said only applies to the individual, governments are exempt?

I can't think of a time in which Jesus actually addressed the givernment's responsibilities. Unlike myself and most people at Free Your Mind, Christ's actions and teachings weren't politically minded or motiviated.

 

[80sU2isBest]

All arguments for and against the use of torture aside, it's a sad reflection on ourselves that we're even discussing it. Our technology is amazing, yet we resort to stomach-turning brutality when we don't get what we think we need. Stop the earth, I want to get off.

najeena, I have a question for you. Please answer this.

Let's imagine that you are a top level CIA agent and you have captured one of the Al Qaeda big wigs. You know he knows at least one Al Qaeda plan to kill innocents. You interrogate him; he doesn't give up any info. You try every coercive method you can think of, and he doesn't give up the info. You know from your CIA training that waterboarding has worked before. You also know how it feels, because as part of your training, you had to undergo it yourself. You have run out of options. Do you waterboard the terrorist murderer in effort to extract the info that would save innocent lives?

I don't want to hear that my scenario would never happen (although we know from an ABC investigative reporter that waterboarding has worked when nothing else did).

All I want to know from you is this:

If you were in the scenario described above, would you waterboard the murdering terrorist to save the lives of innocents?

 

[BVS]

I can't think of a time in which Jesus actually addressed the givernment's responsibilities. Unlike myself and most people at Free Your Mind, Christ's actions and teachings weren't politically minded or motiviated.

This doesn't make sense.

So if you are working for the government your morals go out the window? What's to keep us from making other exemptions?

 

[BVS]

I don't want to hear that my scenario would never happen (although we know from an ABC investigative reporter that waterboarding has worked when nothing else did).

You create an impossible scenario and then tell people not to tell you it would never happen? Come on!

How would one know with absolution this person knows of a plan and not have a clue as to what it is?

 

[80sU2isBest]

You create an impossible scenario and then tell people not to tell you it would never happen? Come on!

How would one know with absolution this person knows of a plan and not have a clue as to what it is?

It's not an impossible situation. Did you see what the ABC Inestigative Reporter said? He said that in "several" instances, the terrorists gave up good, accurate information under the duress of waterboarding that they hadn't given up undre the duress of any other coercive method.

Even if you don't buy what Ross said, the question is not about the statistical possibility of the scenario happening. It hasn't been about that for me this entire time.

So, let's forget all the scenario.s I'll just ask a simple question for you or anyone else who would care to answer:

Would you be willing to psychologically and physically injure a person if that's what it took to stop him from murdering an innocent person?

 

[80sU2isBest]

This doesn't make sense.

So if you are working for the government your morals go out the window? What's to keep us from making other exemptions?

It does make sense. When Christ was talking to people about one on one relationships, those things don't necessarily apply to the way the government should respond.

For instance, Christ said to treat others as you would have them treat you.

Does that apply to the government and its protection of the people? When 9/11 happened, would Christ have wanted the US not to fight back and protect itself against the Taliban, simply because we wouldn't them to attack ourselves?

 

[BVS]

Would you be willing to psychologically and physically injure a person if that's what it took to stop him from murdering an innocent person?

Well the question is still faulty for a couple of reasons. One, simply locking him up would prevent him from murdering an innocent person there would be no need for torture. But let's say you meant it would stop a plan to be carried out by another. Well the answer would be yes obviously, but you're functioning under the false premise of a guarantee.

 

[BVS]

It does make sense. When Christ was talking to people about one on one relationships, those things don't necessarily apply to the way the government should respond.

For instance, Christ said to treat others as you would have them treat you.

Does that apply to the government and its protection of the people? When 9/11 happened, would Christ have wanted the US not to fight back and protect itself against the Taliban, simply because we wouldn't them to attack ourselves?

Big difference in fulfilling justice and torture.

How would we ask others not to torture if we ourselves are doing so? So yes the moral issues still exist. How could one say they are following the teachings of Christ and then torture for a living? He's still an individual that has to answer to God someday...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well the question is still faulty for a couple of reasons. One, simply locking him up would prevent him from murdering an innocent person there would be no need for torture.

Well, I meant "if the person knew the plan", so I should have said that.

But let's say you meant it would stop a plan to be carried out by another. Well the answer would be yes obviously, but you're functioning under the false premise of a guarantee.

First, I commend you for being willing to do what would be necessary. I do think that there are those would not be willing to do that to a murder planner, even if it would stop a murder.

Secondly, I do think that there are situations in which factors can let the agents know that the terrorist they have captured has information, or at least be almost 100% sure. These factors include surveillance and the importance of the terrorist captured. For an example of the importance factor, look at the case of that guy who, under waterboarding duress, gave them the info that stopped the plan against the towers in Los Angeles. He was big wig - very important in the organization; they knew he had to know plans.

 

[kellyahern]

Cheney endorses simulated drowning

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15431835/